Prejudicial order under agricultural income-tax law requires worsened assessee position; mere refusal to interfere is insufficient.

An order is "prejudicial" under Section 28(2) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act only if it places the assessee in a worse position than before. A Commissioner's refusal to interfere with an assessment, without enhancing the assessment or otherwise adversely altering the assessee's position, does not create a fresh right of reference. The absence of an express proviso later found in the Indian Income-tax Act did not justify giving the same words a different meaning in the Assam Act. Accordingly, no reference lies from a mere refusal to interfere where no additional prejudice is shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of the Commissioner declining to interfere with an assessment under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act was an order "prejudicial" to the assessee so as to permit a reference under Section 28(2).

Analysis: The expression "order prejudicial to him" in Section 28(2) was construed in light of the Privy Council's interpretation of the corresponding language in the Indian Income-tax Act. An order is prejudicial only when, as a result of it, the assessee is placed in a worse position than before the order was made. Where the Commissioner merely declines to interfere and does not enhance the assessment or otherwise worsen the assessee's position, no new right of reference arises. The absence of an express proviso like the one later inserted in Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act did not justify a different meaning of the same words in the Assam Act.

Conclusion: The order refusing to interfere was not prejudicial to the assessee and no reference lay under Section 28(2).

Ratio Decidendi: A reference lies only from an order that materially worsens the assessee's position; a refusal to interfere with an assessment, without enhancement or other adverse alteration, is not a prejudicial order.

---